Given your earlier post arguing that it is futile to compare players from different eras, I assume this is merely an attempt to illustrate Grace's dominance over his peers, rather than a genuine attempt to realistically estimate the great man's output should we find a time machine and transport him into the 2000s. Indeed, the game has changed to such an extent over the intervening 130 year period as to render any extrapolation meaningless.
.

Absolutely correct and my standpoint always. Rest is just to show people how wrong they are to underplay the deeds of these giants of earlier eras.

18-05-2008, 06:04 PM

neville cardus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swervy

I actually accidentally chose that option, it was meant to be 'still be the best ever'

Ditto.

18-05-2008, 06:05 PM

neville cardus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migara

Edited: Misread it.

You or (as is more likely the case) me?

18-05-2008, 06:08 PM

neville cardus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard

^^For those reasons, I've always been happy to say only that Grace was a master of cricket as it was played at his time. It's fairly safe to say he'd be damn good, very possibly one of England's better batsmen in history, had he played in the 19th-century.

He did.

19-05-2008, 01:42 AM

Migara

Quote:

Originally Posted by neville cardus

You or (as is more likely the case) me?

My self.

19-05-2008, 03:13 AM

Richard

Quote:

Originally Posted by neville cardus

He did.

For some reason, meaning "played in the 20th", I mixed it up with "played after the 19th" and ended-up with "played in the 19th".

Post now edited to reflect what I actually meant.

19-05-2008, 05:24 AM

neville cardus

Don't mind my pedantry. Being subjected to it week after week at uni makes me loth to pass up the opportunity to reciprocate.

19-06-2008, 01:41 AM

a massive zebra

Quote:

Originally Posted by SJS

Thats very correct.

If you take away Bradman's average from that era, it would be fair to take away the other great's average from his era also. Which would make the comparison as under.

The Rest of the world average in the era's of the five greats and Don's extrapolated average

I am afraid the final conclusion remains the same even though the figures are slightly different - Bradman's era was the best of the lot for batting ........ or had the best batsmen take your pick :)

I don't think anyone would quibble over a couple of runs. The Bradman and Richards eras showed a significant variance of 5% in your previous extrapolation, which could easily be interpreted as material.